, Volume 83, Issue 4, pp 627–645 | Cite as

Responding to Skepticism About Doxastic Agency

  • Miriam Schleifer McCormick
Original Research


My main aim is to argue that most conceptions of doxastic agency do not respond to the skeptic’s challenge. I begin by considering some reasons for thinking that we are not doxastic agents. I then turn to a discussion of those who try to make sense of doxastic agency by appeal to belief’s reasons-responsive nature. What they end up calling agency is not robust enough to satisfy the challenge posed by the skeptics. To satisfy the skeptic, one needs to make sense of the possibility of believing for nonevidential reasons. While this has been seen as an untenable view for both skeptics and anti-skeptics, I conclude by suggesting it is a position that has been too hastily dismissed.



I am grateful to the audiences at the Workshop on Doxastic Agency and Epistemic Responsibility, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, June 2–3, 2014, the Eidyn Epistemology Research Group, University of Edinburgh, October 1, 2014, and the participants in Erasmus Mayr’s colloquium at Humboldt University (Fall 2014) for helpful discussion of earlier versions of this paper. Thanks to Matthew Chrisman, Nioklaj Nottleman, Alexander Dinges, and Simon Gaus for their extensive comments on and discussion of earlier drafts. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous referees for Erkenntnis for very helpful written comments.


  1. Adler, J. (2002). Belief’s own ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Audi, R. (2001). Doxastic voluntarism and the ethics of belief. In M. Steup (Ed.), Knowledge, truth, and duty: Essays on epistemic justification, responsibility, and virtue (pp. 63–76). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boyle, M. (2011a). Making up your mind’ and the activity of reason. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(16), 1–24.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, M. (2011b). Active belief. In D. Hunter (Ed.), Belief and agency (pp. 119–147). Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chrisman, M. (2008). Ought to believe. The Journal of Philosophy, 105(7), 346–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chrisman, M. (2016). Epistemic normativity and cognitive agency. Nous. doi: 10.1111/nous.12184.Google Scholar
  7. Engel, P. (2013). Is epistemic agency possible? Philosophical Issues, 23, 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hawley, K. (2014). Partiality and prejudice in trusting. Synthese, 191(3), 2029–2045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hieronymi, P. (2008). Responsibility for believing. Synthese, 161(3), 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holton, R. (1994). Deciding to trust, coming to believe. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leary, S. (2016). In defense of practical reasons for belief. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. doi: 10.1080/00048402.2016.1237532.Google Scholar
  13. Levy, N. (2007). Doxastic responsibility. Synthese, 155, 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marušić, B. (2012). Belief and difficult action. Philosopher’s Imprint, 12(18), 1–30.Google Scholar
  15. Marušić, B. (2013). Promising against the evidence. Ethics, 123, 292–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marušić, B. (2015). Evidence and agency: Norms of belief for promising and resolving. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. McCormick, M. S. (2011). Taking control of belief. Philosophical Explorations, 14(2), 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCormick, M. S. (2015). Believing against the evidence: Agency and the ethics of belief (p. 2015). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. McHugh, C. (2011). Exercising doxastic freedom. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nolfi, K. (2013). Why is epistemic evaluation prescriptive? Inquiry, 57(1), 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nolfi, K. (2015). How to be a normativist about the nature of belief. Pacific Philosophical Quaterly, 96(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paul, S. (2015). The courage of conviction. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 45(5–6), 1–23.Google Scholar
  23. Reiser, A. (2009). The possibility of pragmatic reasons for belief and the wrong kind of reason problem. Philosohical studies, 145(2), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reiser, A. (2013). Leaps of knowledge. In T. Chan (Ed.), The aim of belief (pp. 167–183). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reiser, A. (forthcoming). Pragematic reasons for belief. In: D. Star (ed), The oxford handbook of reasons. Oxford University Press: OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Rinard, S. (2015). Against the new evidentialists. Philosophical Issues. doi: 10.1111/phis.12061.Google Scholar
  27. Setiya, K. (2013). Epistemic agency: Some doubts. Philosophical Issues Epistemic Agency, 23, 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shah, N. (2006). A new argument for evidentialism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 225, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sosa, E. (2015). Judgment and agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steup, M. (2008). Doxastic freedom. Synthese, 161, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sylvan, K. (2016). Epistemic reasons II: Basing. Philosophy Compass, 11(7), 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Talbot, B. (2014). Truth promoting non-evidential reasons for belief. Philosophical Studies, 168, 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Way, J. (2016). Two arguments for evidentialism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 66(265), 805–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams, B. (1973). Deciding to believe. In Problems of self, pp. 136–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of RichmondRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations